TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed bills of entry. These five appeals deal with different bills of entry but the issue involved is the same and hence are being decided through this common order. 3. The appellant filed bills of entry for clearance of these broadcasting equipments by claiming the benefit of customs notification no.13/2010 dated 19.02.2010 which granted exemption from customs duty when equipments are imported for the purpose of organizing the Common Wealth Games 2010 subject to various conditions specified in the notification. The notification no.13/2010 was amended by notification no.84/2010-Cus dated 27.08.2010. The equipments imported by the appellant were required to be re-exported after using the same for the Common Wealth Games 2010. The goods were al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., as the case may be, from the Joint Director General (Co-ordination) or Director (Co-ordination) of the Organizing Committee of the Games, 2010, including;- a. The name and address of the importer and the description, quantity and value of the said goods, and b. That the said goods are required for the purpose specified in condition (a) above; iii) The importer, at the time of clearance of goods, furnishes an undertaking that all such goods shall be reexported within three months from the conclusion of the Games. Provided that in the case of imports by suppliers or contractors or vendors or sub-vendors of the Prasar Bharti or of the broad casting right holders, the Prasar Bharti shall, at the time of clearance of the goods, furnish a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the required certificates from organizing committee as well as from Prasar Bharti which necessitated the issue of circular no. 28/2010 which allowed certain relaxation in the conditions / procedure to expedite clearance of equipments required for conduct of CWG 2010. The relevant notification was also substantially amended vide notification no. 84/2010. The appellant has submitted that after the goods were cleared by the Department after due examination and the goods have been reexported the Department is stopped from demanding duty on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. ii) Appellant has also claimed that they also submitted the undertakings from the Prasar Bharti subsequently, even thought they filed undertakings signed by themselves i....